Are documentaries a pathway through the glass ceiling for female directors in the fictional narrative arena?

Consider this a slightly interesting bit of news that hopefully will be a sign of things to come.  I generally don't post every press release I receive, mostly because there are other places you can go for that kind of thing.  But the press release regarding what was basically a casting announcement for Dakota Fanning caught my eye.  The film is called Every Secret Thing and it's also starring Diane Lane,  Danielle Macdonald, and Elizabeth Banks.  It concerns "two 11-year-old girls who are convicted of murdering a baby and are incarcerated until they turn 18.  Upon their release, children start to go missing; as the police turn their attention to the duo, the mystery surrounding the original murder comes back to light." The film's director is one Amy Berg.  Okay, so you have  female-driven film starring several major female talents and directed by a female director.  Always good news, but so what?  Well, Ms. Berg is making her feature film debut on the project, having previous cut her teeth in the realm of documentary film-making.

A safely sanitized celebration of state-sponsored child murder. The disturbingly crowd-pleasing immorality of The Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games: an IMAX Experience
2012
142 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Note - this is not a conventional review and there will be far more spoilers than usual.  So warned...

The Hunger Games, as it exists as a film, is caught between two worlds.  One on hand, it wants to be a dramatic thriller about a totalitarian regime that picks children at random and forces them to fight each other to the death for the entertainment of the wealthy masses.  On the other hand, it wants to be a series that appeals to mass audiences in order to rack up massive box office grosses and become 'the next big franchise'.  As a direct result of this conundrum, the picture not only fails as a social/political commentary but becomes an ugly celebration of the very narrative that it should be condemning.  By refusing to look directly at its own story and by instead fashioning a convenient morality out of its murderous sporting event, it lets the audience off the hook and even encourages them to enjoy the blood-sport as 'entertainment'.  The film may appear to be mocking reality show conventions and the tendency to emphasize simplistic narratives to alleviate discomfort, but by virtue of what it omits and what it emphasizes, The Hunger Games is a prime example of what it claims to criticize. The film is so afraid to confront the horror of its premise that, in its need to create a mass-audience PG-13 franchise, it makes the cheering audience culpable and every bit as guilty as those who would watch such a thing in real life.

*This* is confidence: The Hunger Games gets an IMAX upgrade while Lionsgate releases a spoiler-free second trailer.

I have now seen three Hunger Games previews, the teaser, the wonderful full trailer from a few months ago, and now this 69-second second trailer.  And I still know next-to-nothing about how the film plays out.  I know the concept, I know large chunks of the first and second act, and I know some of the actors I can expect to see.  Other than that, nadda.  No mega-money shots from the climax, no thrill-spilling montage, no expository narration or on-screen text.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you market a would-be franchise.  You explain the core story, you tease a character relationship or two, offer a few tantalizing bits and pieces, and you get out.  This final teaser, combined with the news that the film will play in IMAX for the first week of release, is a sign that Lionsgate feels it has the goods and can deliver not just to the fans of the source material but to general audiences as well.  The Hunger Games opens on March 32rd.  As always, we'll see...  Oh, and the IMAX press release is after the jump.

Scott Mendelson